Monday, September 14, 2015

Philosophy and Anger Management

My
first article on the European immigration/invasion crisis, “’Just
Do it!’ Kant and the Immigration Crisis,” elicited some very hostile
responses from readers on Facebook, a response I was not aware of until alerted
to the cacophony by a friend. In the name of protecting the identities of the
perpetrators, I will not provide the link to that particular Facebook account
nor name names of those who called me “obnoxious,” an “amateur critic” of Kant,
or just plain but uncivilly and unjustifiably angry. I’m not sure if any of them has yet read “Part
Two.”

After reading all of the comments on this
particular Facebook page, I left my own, not thinking I’d need to return with
more words to the wise. My Facebook comments here are edited for style and ease
of reading:

To
all the talking heads here who think I’m obnoxious, or who don’t like my
“manner” of commentary, or who think I’m an “amateur critic" of Islam and of
Obama and of Third World immigration and invasion and of all the other plagues
that threaten Western civilization, or who question my grasp of Immanuel Kant:

When
you’ve written four successful fiction series, including Sparrowhawk, the Skeen novels, the Hanrahan novels, and the Fury
novels, and a handful of nonfiction works, plus about 1,400,000 words of
commentary on Rule of Reason in over 750 columns, which do not include
numerous reviews in the Wall Street Journal and various encyclopedias and other
print publications over the years, risked your life by speaking your mind in a
public forum and possibly earning an Islamic fatwa or the unwanted attention of our own government – then you
may presume to judge my “manner” and any other offensive faux pas you wish to accuse me of committing.

As
Howard Roark, the hero of Rand’s The
Fountainhead, did not discuss the merits of his work with members of the
Architectural Guild, I don’t discuss the merits of my work with people who
don’t seem to have anything else to do but nitpick (and when there are not nits
to pick). This is why I haven’t participated in your discussions here. I can
only thank those few who came to my defense on the matter of the
Kant/Immigration column of mine. And that is all I have to say.

But, the thread went on and on. I
finally felt it necessary to leave another comment.

Mr. K, on whose Facebook page this session of the Star
Chamber is occurring, wrote in answer to another commentator’s remarks:

Peter:
I have not read Mr. Cline's fiction, but I have heard good things from those
who have. Mr. Cline's position on immigration, like his position on LGTB
people, plays right into the hands of the left. Leftists are forever saying:
capitalism is for straight white American men to get rich by oppressing
everyone else who is different. By saying foreigners and people with atypical
sexual desires are grave threats to civilization--as opposed to irrationality
and altruism--is to make their case for them, intentionally or not.

My reply was:

Mr. K: You could just as well claim
that Rand’s fiction “plays into the hands of the left” and “makes their case
for them, intentionally or not” regarding capitalism and LGTBs and foreigners
and any other current topic one might wish to raise. As Rand didn’t write her
fiction unintentionally to “play into” anyone’s hands, so I do. I can’t control
what others “intend” my fiction to be or to represent. She didn’t write
her fiction to raise the hackles of conservative William F. Buckley or to cause
indigestion in any leftist critic or intellectual.

You seem to be looking at fiction through a
counter-Marxist lens – the Marxist position being that fiction represents an
expression of class, or of race, or of gender. Well, let the Marxists
make their “let’s give his texts a close reading so we can see what are his
subtexts and his encoded racial and gender messages” claims, but you shouldn’t
dignify their “deconstruction” of fiction by saying that my or Rand’s fiction
is somehow guilty of bolstering their arguments against capitalism (or freedom
of speech, etc.).

Moreover, if I recall correctly, Leonard Peikoff once
received a proposal to produce Rand’s novel “Anthem” as a play with the
stipulation that it feature a multi-racial cast. He turned it down. I don’t
know his reasons, but I gather it was because there are no homosexual or
lesbian or black or other ethnic characters in any of her fiction. There
are some “ethnic” characters in my fiction, particularly and necessarily in the
Sparrowhawk series, and in some in
the Skeen detective series; the homosexual ones are pathetic, the lesbian ones
vicious, and in China Basin there’s particularly
brutal bisexual, but in all the titles reason trumps their race or
gender.

I
suggest you sample my fiction and judge for yourself. But don’t approach it
with a “deconstructive” motive in mind, that is, expecting to find my intentional,
unintentional, or subliminal “subtexts.”I don’t “do” subtexts. You won’t need a secret decoding ring to get something
out of my fiction. You won’t need to subject it to cryptanalysis. There are no
“signifiers” or “signifieds” in my fiction. Should a deconstructionist claim to
find any, then he’s seeing things that aren’t there.

I half expect someone to reply to that by pointing to my “White
Literary Privilege,” that is, my making all my characters “white” with few
ethnic characters. No, I’m not being fair now. I would expect that from the
harpies of Academe. I will confess that I have one Chinese character in An
August Interlude.

And then there's that "anger" issue. So what if I'm
"angry"? How many of Rand's columns were written from
"anger"? Plenty. Hell hath no fury like a philosopher scorned. But
it's not okay for an "amateur critic” of Kant to write from
"anger"?

Mr. P left this suggestion:

What would
interest me much more would be to know if Mr Cline is open to having the basis
of his ideas challenged (not so much the principles, which I agree with) if
they were based on facts, on correct observations about current events in
immigration and refugees. I had a similar try with Mr Mazlish, who holds views
similar to his, and got nowhere with simply showing that many of his facts were
not real, but manipulated by his sources. Often they are conflations of truth
and fiction.

The truth is that, sadly today's Internet and today's radio and TV shows are
sadly totally unreliable to use as sources to build ideas upon. They are 80%
fabrications and only 20 % truth.

No, Mr. P, I'm not interested in debating my position. I don't
need to validate it. Read what I have to say, take or leave it. I've already
done the heavy lifting. I'm guessing also that because I'm not speaking from a
position of "authority," everything I have to say can be challenged. Challenge
away. Although Mr. P is right about the bias in today’s news reportage on the “refugee”
and “asylum seekers” investing Europe. But I don’t get my news from the MSM
anymore. I get it from Jihad Watch,
Pamela Geller’s Atlas Shrugs, Gatestone,
The Gates of Vienna, Steve Emerson’s IPT, FrontPage,
and Sultan Knish, among many other sources. Those are all sources I trust to tell the truth. If I
read the MSM’s version of the news, it is with a jaundiced eye and a developed
skill of reading behind the lines, as I’ve read the New York Times for decades.

Here I end this column, my anger having been spent, to turn to
other, more pressing matters.

My guess is that these criticisms are coming from what Lindsay Perigo calls "Obleftivists" as in those Objectivists who essentially repeat Leftist narratives using Randian language. I am starting to think of two approaches to Objectivism as you could say there are two approaches to libertarianism; an Objectivist Left and an Objectivist Right. The Left as always is obsessed with egalitarianism and the Right understands that human nature is not egalitarian and that groups in some contexts matter, so much so in fact that the group itself must be considered ahead of an individual person. Very few Objectivists have a right wing view on human nature. Sadly, that's because Rand herself had a blank slate view and did not apply the law of identity to groups. I can forgive her for that though. Its today's Objectivists that are becoming indistinguishable from Leftists on certain subjects that are insufferable.

As for the argument that Ed is not open to "facts" which could change his opinion on immigrants, well the facts are overwhelmingly on the side of those that argue for immigration restrictions. Not to mention what you'll find if you get into the race and IQ data, crime and race data, economics and IQ data, etc, etc. I don't ignore economics. Its true, if we had a true limited government, pro-free market society, we would not be having many of these problems. But even under the best of economic circumstances, Muslims would be impossible to integrate, especially a mass invasion of them. Nations are the product of culture and culture is heavily dependent on genetic as well as historical factors. Culture is capital and it should not be squandered.

Objectivists don't and won't consider these things. Not until it probably becomes too late and North America and Western Europe are lost to racial and cultural chaos. The one million Muslims that Germany is thinking of taking in would be worth 5 years of white German babies. If anyone doesn't understand what that portends for the future of Germany and of Europe as a whole, they just don't understand the world in which they live.

Diversity + mixed economy welfare states = war

And sadly mixed economy welfare states are where humanity is for the foreseeable future. To change that paradigm is probably going to involve war. Throwing in non-Europeans and Muslims is just going to make our lives that much worse. I swear, white people are masochists.

Again, I must stress that in terms of accusing anyone of "racism" for opposing the immigration of Muslims and Mexicans, that charge is never laid on Muslims and Mexicans, because doing that would be tantamount to "racism." The liberals and leftists have that narrative wrapped up tight. But it's only white Europeans and white Americans who will be victimized by these groups, and if they protest and point that fact out, they're demonized. Then there's the #BlackLivesMatter gang to contend with, a more blatantly racist bunch that gets a free pass from the MSM and little if any notice is taken by the MSM of the horrific crimes committed by blacks on whites. Remember that couple that was kidnapped, raped, mutilated and murdered in Tennessee by five black Neanderthals? They're up for trail soon, but I'm betting no one in the courtroom will accuse them of racism, but it was clearly a racially motivated crime.

Say all you watched/looked at was the MSM, would you know that there is a war against white cops, that Somali Muslims in the US are joining ISIS, etc? Would you learn this by watching an Objectivist site (other than Ed's)?

"Say all you watched/looked at was the MSM, would you know that there is a war against white cops, that Somali Muslims in the US are joining ISIS, etc?"

The "Black Lives Matter" movement is essentially a terrorist organization that can already claim the killing of 5 cops and 2 civilians by lone wolves. But I bet anything that if an Objectivist were to write about it the perspective would be that while anti-black racism still exists the solution is free markets bla bla bla. You would never know that due to cultural Marxism there is massive systemic hatred directed at whites in general and white Christian males in particular. Yes, free markets are to be advocated for but the "homo economicus" approach of Objectivists and most libertarians is difficult to bear.

We all have our templates for looking at the world. For Objectivists it's the individual versus the collective, selfishness vs. altruism, etc. For libertarians it's a preoccupation with "the State."

But what's happening here can't be fit nicely into these formulas. Yes, it's irrational to kill white cops, but the idea of whites abetting blacks into creating a race war is just bizarre.

Or the example that Ed gave above of the UK punishing people for publicly reading the writings of one of their greatest champions.

While I don't believe in Rand's blank-slatism concerning group differences, she seemed to advocate a view that cultural differences can be so ingrained that they might as well be genetic. The idea that only virtous people emigrate is contrary to her thought. Just yesterday Ari Armstrong denounced the Republican party for being "racist and xenophoic." Besides the typical liberal smear of racism, he apparently lacks any insight that the culture he professes to believe in can't survive a mass influx of 3d world immigrants. It's rather ironic that people like Biddle and Armstrong are hyper-supporters of Israel. Has it occurred to them that 3d world immigrants don't seem to like Jews and Israel very much? Nor do they value the 2d amendment, from what I can tell.

"We all have our templates for looking at the world. For Objectivists it's the individual versus the collective, selfishness vs. altruism, etc. For libertarians it's a preoccupation with "the State.""

This is a very good point. You phrased it in a different way than I have in the past but it made me think of something. You use the word "templates". The Left uses the term "narratives". But I have been thinking lately that what conclusions you can reach about the world depends on the framework you have (what I think of as "channels" or "highways" that direct your thoughts and allow your mind to go) AND the data you have accumulated. The Objectivist framework is limited as you suggest. I think O'ist epistemology would allow for a better understanding of culture and politics then you see from them today (they were better analyzing the old Communism). But Objectivists just don't have enough "data". They don't know enough history and on top of it they don't know what to look for. They don't understand human nature; specifically female nature and group dynamics. They don't and won't even acknowledge that there are racial differences. And the latter is a direct consequence of the fact that they don't believe that the Law of Identity applies to groups. I think Objectivism could have gone in a different direction; if it had been self critical, something which it has not proven to be.

And Rand herself would have reached very different conclusions than today's Objectivists I am sure. Given the era in which she lived she implicitly understood many truths about human nature which post 1960s people have been brainwashed to forget. Rand, for example, would have HATED Islam and would never have advocated immigration of Muslims. I think she would have made connections that today's Randians can not. She would have modified her individualism. Not rejected it but given it more precise parameters that no one today seems capable of.

I really do like the better elements of the Classical Liberal legacy. I have been reading the history of that movement and I see that it was instrumental in removing the hereditary caste system that was inherent in the Feudal era. That WAS a good thing. I am not a Reactionary or a Traditionalist as much as I think they have some good points. I do suspect that a Right Liberal philosophy could be made that is not suicidal. But it doesn't seem that Objectivism is it. But I see that there are people such as Ed Powell, Grant Jones, and some others in the O'ist solar system (not to mention you and myself) that are seeing that Objectivism (and libertarianism too) as it is has too many flaws to be viable. Perhaps there will be a significant splinter movement some time soon? But it will take a serious intellectual who is trained in philosophy, who appreciates the best elements of the Classical Liberal tradition (including Rand), understand biologic realism (both race and sex) and is well read in history. That is not a common combination. Usually when people become biologically aware they become racial nationalist or reactionaries and usually they either double down on religion (Larry Auster) or they become materialists / reductionists (ie Kevin MacDonald).

Merkel has a new aid who gave the following quote regarding Europe and immigration:

"Immigration is the future. You cannot work and live in a globalized world, in the middle of the world, in Europe, without immigration and moving populations. So you have have to really make a good policy of immigration all over Europe. And we see that the history of Europe, with its long history of nationalism and small countries, is now getting into a crisis, so ... we need a long time to make it better, but you have to [enforce?] this.

You have to really change the policy of immigration inside Europe.

This is very important, you have to adapt the educational system and adapt all the self understanding of the states.

They are not anymore only white or only Swedish or only Portuguese or only German.

They are multicultural places in the world."

When many right wingers argue that the Left is ultimately aiming for racial displacement / dilution of whites they are not wrong. The above quote shows that the Left will not stop in their totalitarian move to eliminate the European nature of European society. "You have to adapt the educational system." Right. You have to brainwash those kids from youth.

How would Randians view this? How could they argue against it? On what grounds? Do they even care if Europe remains European? I would love to know.

I would love to know as well. Yaron Brook was asked recently about Israel and he said that Israel had the right to restrict immigration to maintain its Jewish cultural character because Jews have been persecuted (supposedly everywhere and every time I guess). He couldn't name another country that had this right.

I suppose it comes down for the Objectivist dislike of the "intrinsic." You and I might think the world would be a worse place when Icelanders become displaced by a million Congolese and their unique culture and language disappear, but to mainstream Objectivists that borders on racism. As Libertarian Realist once said, it's kind of a sick joke to tell Japanese that you like their country and culture, but look forward to the day when its culture is replaced by hoards of aliens who despise it. But, hell, at least "the world will be as one."

Rand didn't write anything about immigration. She also didn't write much of anything about the things that are necessary to hash out until you can come up with an immigration policy such as the nation state, citizenship, and the purpose of borders.

I think most Objectivists are smart enough to see that open immigration would result in the ethnic displacement of white people. So someone such as Amy Peikoff - who seems to "get it" on immigration - argues that in an ideal world you could have open immigration and as long as you had "freedom of association" and didn't give everyone voting rights. This is of course highly impractical. Even if you could convince white people that freedom of association is important, try convincing the hoards of brown people. Nor can you permanently disenfranchise a large subgroup as the Portuguese in Angola and Mozambique found out and the whites in South Africa and Rhodesia also found out. (I'm not defending these governments, just illustrating a point.)

Ultimately, one needs to conclude that there is a connection between ethnicity and well being. As you noted, there is research showing that the more homogeneous a nation is, the more peaceful its people are, the more civic minded they are, etc. But I imagine that Objectivists would come back and say that this is a remenant of "tribalism."

"But Objectivists just don't have enough "data". They don't know enough history and on top of it they don't know what to look for. They don't understand human nature; specifically female nature and group dynamics. They don't and won't even acknowledge that there are racial differences. And the latter is a direct consequence of the fact that they don't believe that the Law of Identity applies to groups. "

Ari Armstrong is the perfect example. He keeps claiming that Republicans who opposes legalized abortion and same-sex marriage are "theocrats." Now this was a word first used by leftists (I believe in The New Republic). A theocracy should be reserved for Iran or Calvin's Geneva. Has Armstrong ever heard of Calvin's Geneva? Has he ever read a book on the Reformation.

Ed's the only Objectivist I know who points out that centuries of inbreeding have made Muslims mentally unstable people. I once pointed this fact on an ARI-associated blog and got banned.

That the law of identify applies to groups is a key insight. If you import a million Muslim families, the worst aspects of Islamic culture (misogony and child rape) will reassert themselves and I don't care how much "screening" you can do. For example, 2d and 3d generation Hispanics are doing worse than 1st generation. Second generation Muslims in Europe are more resentful than the first. Now this can be explained by regression to the mean among other things . . .

Very good points Steve. Especially the voting point. The more aware Objectivists would only award voting after a generation or two. But even that would be viewed as racist by today's mindset. Today, minorities get "triggered" by the drop of a pin. Look at the shit Matt Damon (a leftist no less) is getting for his pro-merit statement. Who knew Matt Damon was an open advocate of White Privilege. And yes, allowing full freedom of association and *disassociation* is something that is considered to be Hitlerian by today's Left and mainstream Right (the Overton Window). I'm glad Amy recognizes the importance of that but I think that it would be considered unconstitutional by today's legal theory.

The Objectivist politics could only work if egalitarianism and altruism were totally destroyed as intellectual influences. I can't see that happening short of some major catastrophe, and even then it would be only happen after centuries. So when Objectivists argue for their political system, as nice as it is (and I do like it), it is in the realm of sci-fi. Which means Objectivists, if they were realistic, would have to also consider the here and now and the dangers presented by multi-culturalism (really multi-racialism) today. Jesus, look at Europe for how ugly this is getting.

Regarding intrinsicism, that is another good point about O'ist thinking patterns that I hadn't considered. Yes, O'ists do fight this, probably more than they fight subjectivism given that they are more obsessed with religion then they are with Leftism (after all Leftists are secularists!). But here is where we see problems with Objectivism and Right Liberalism as such. If Objectivism is going to consider human biology as leading to philosophic error (ie "intrinsicism") then they are essentially saying that one of the most crucial areas of human nature is off limits lest one be considered a racist. They end up in the same place as the Left. No, they are not evil like Leftists. But their philosophy is going to assist evil in the end. And every time I read an O'ist argue that anti-immigration positions are "racist", I see the inevitable march leftward of the O'ist movement. They will become as impotent as the left-libertarians.

I can't see how you can analyze culture without understanding that the Left has an agenda. They want to destroy the nuclear family on root to erasing sex differences between men and women (feminism' ultimate aim). Then they want to eliminate race distinctions. But in order to do that they must erase straight, white men. Which means that an ultimate end to Leftism is the liquidation of whites. Talk about a Holocaust. These are serious evil's that cry out for condemnation. But the Randian movement is stuck inside walls so narrow that all this escapes them. The same can be said for basically every right wing movement with the exception of the alt-right. And they have totalitarian sentiments of their own.

I was listening (to the extent I was able to without vomiting) to Yaron Brook's discussion on Saturday about the Islamic invasion of Europe.

He's not concerned about turning Europe Islamic, but about the nationalist and "xenophobic" backlash that Islamic immigration will create. We'll get new fascist parties that will result in Jews being thrown into concentration camp by white Europeans.

If these people are the opposition to the Left, then Galt help us all.

Check out Stephan Mollyneaux's "Why Europe Owe's the Migrants nothing". As you know, Mollyneaux is an anarcho-capitalist so he has views on foreign policy that I would disagree with because he sees the state itself as illegitimate. But that being said, Mollyneaux offers a view of the migrants that no mainstream O'ist is capable of. It is excellent. Its only 30 minutes. Listen to it and compare it to anything you will get from mainstream O'ists. Only a handful of O'ists that I have seen would be capable of something like this. Ed, if you're reading, you too should listen to it. He lays out well reasoned arguments that make what you hear from Yaron Brook or Ari Armstrong or the ARI seem like illiterate babbling. Mollyneaux continues to impress (despite his anarchism. And he's far more balanced then me. I get hot headed.).

We are watching the Objectivist movement move to the Left. A movement that was born of Rand's war against Communism. Depressing. It now sees the greatest threat to the West as Neo-Nazis. But then again, what was Dr. Peikoff's first book? A book about Nazis. Have any Objectivists actually written detailed examinations about Communism?

I'm guessing Brook's commentary on the Migrant crisis was on his podcast channel. I want to listen to it but I know I will get "triggered" and then I will start to curse. Imagine that, Yaron Brook committed a micro-aggression against me. How do you like that?

(Also I can remember in 2005 at an ARI talk I attended, Brook argued that the threat from religious Conservatives was so great that in 20 years we could be living in a Christian theocracy. I'm tempted to joke "if only we would be so lucky". Clueless is the perfect word for Brook.)

Yaron Brook spoke about the Islamic invasion on Peikoff's podcast recently. But if you want to hear him "unplugged" you have to listen to his blog talk radio show. It was there where he said that Islamic immigration was going to result in white Europeans sending Jews to concentration camps. Like the neoconservatives, it's always 1939 to him.

The Mollyneaux piece was excellent. Much more in-depth than any Objectivist could do.

Funny, Ayn Rand taught us about the nature of pathological altruism and how it destroys civilization. It's the tool you need to fight mass immigration, but Brook and Binswanger think her ideas support Islamic immigration even it results in Europe becoming Islamic.

You can listen to Brook at 1:12 on. He says he is not afraid of Islam or Islamic immigration into Europe. We could end the threat of Islam in a week with appropriate military action. He fears the European "xenophobic right" which will take advantage of this situation to build collectivism, etc. He says "Germany of all nations" won't allow Muslims to take over - they will put Muslims and "the Jews for good measure" into concentration camps. Like the neocons, it's always 1939 to Yaron Brook.

He blames "Christian altruism" for this, but turning Europe Islamic has never been a priority for Christianity. In fact, after WW2 Pius XII said that Europe should welcome immigrants (fellow Christians from the East) and prayed that when things settle down these people would be able to return to the countries they came from.

The Left is importing massive numbers of Muslims to turn Europe Islamic, not because they love Islam but because they hate white, male-dominated heterosexual civilization. White women who are raped are just collateral damage on the march to social justice. And Yaron Brook can't see it. The guy should stick to accounting.

Great Post. I was truly delighted to read this. Things seem to be crystal clear now...............................Insurance verification services are the important steps to be follow in medical billing cycle. It includes verification of payable benefit, patient policy.

Off Shore Drilling: Your post was hacked by some insurance company. Did you have anything else to say?

I gave up on "official" Objectivist positions on immigration, Mexican or Muslim. I'm not sure Germany would resort to putting Muslims and Jews in concentration camps, not when all of Merkel's Minions in and out of office have welcomed Muslims with open arms. "Come on in! Stay a while! Help boost our economy! Find a job! Earn your keep!" Don't make me laugh! Doesn't this guy read anything other than the MSM? Has he ever heard of Bare Naked Islam, or Gatestone, or Jihad Watch, or Atlas Shrugs, or The Investigative Project on Terrorism, or The Center for Security Policy...etc.? These are our main venues of truth. I guess not, or he probably has dubbed them "xenophobic." These are the sites where we can learn what's really going on out there and over there. Oh, and I forgot: Rule of Reason. Please forgive me for not posting much the last few weeks. I'm in the midst of writing another novel.

"He says "Germany of all nations" won't allow Muslims to take over - they will put Muslims and "the Jews for good measure" into concentration camps."

Sweet Jesus or Holy Galt. Take your pick. So both Jews AND Muslims are in danger? From the evil Neo-Nazis? I think some Leftists have more insight than this.

Regarding the Christians and altruism. The dominant form of altruism is coming from the Left. Now, I do think there is a relationship between Christianity and modern altruism. The alt-right (I think Moldbug) has the theory that Leftism is secularized protestantism (what he calls "the Cathedral"), which I think is a take off of Rothbard's theory regarding the way Christianity progressed late era. And then of course there is Kant and his CI. But Objectivists should be researching this and tracing the history. Plus they should realize and see that it is Leftism/Progressivism/Cultural_Marxism/Egalitarianism/anti_white_hetero_Christian_male_ism which is the dominant religion of the day. Egalitarianism is a secular civic religion and far Leftists are the most dangerous religious fundamentalists we have today (and sadly a significant contingent of the far Left intelligentsia are Jewish. But I'm sure Brook won't go there.)

But Objectivists see none of this. I occasionally read the twitter feeds of some of the O'ists that I know of. And its almost as bad as liberals (ie Ari Armstrong - I swear that man is really a Vulcan only without the logic). I am dumbfounded by how much in alignment they are with the Left on significant issues. Even before I was influenced by alt-right views I was still militantly anti-Islam, anti-feminism, anti-multi-cultism, and mixed on immigration (as I was seeing the area I grew up in but no longer live be transformed into a 3rd world population). Now granted, I would now be considered "far right" by Objectivist standards, but even as a standard O'ist I was still far to the right of the entire movement. I used to curse Tracinski as the "neo-con" of Objectivism (he's worse now than then - he writes for a Cuckservative site, ie the Federalist - that's just sad). So I am shocked by how milquetoast / leftish the entire movement is (with some exceptions). I guess it affects me because I have affection for Rand and despite whatever flaws her system has, I feel her ideas are being misapplied or poorly applied (not applied?). She deserved better.

"The Left is importing massive numbers of Muslims to turn Europe Islamic, not because they love Islam but because they hate white, male-dominated heterosexual civilization."

No one in the mainstream (and O'ism is mainstream as much as they want to pretend that they're outside the Overton Window which they are NOT on many important subjects) can or will admit this. To do so would be tantamount to racism and Hitlerism. As Yaron Brook's own statements show. Brook doesn't realize it but he is policing the Right using the Lefts moral worldview; ie disagreeing with mulit-cult-ism = Hitler. He is assisting evil and he doesn't know it and actually thinks he's being heroic.

Sadly, I am coming to agree with the view that most Jews are incapable of seeing past their own group's tribal interests. While I don't like Jew hatred because it is anti-philosophical, I do think that Jews as a group do act consistently toward destructive ends for European civilization. I think Rand loved European culture (although she never phrased it like that). I don't think she would have had this hysterical concern for anti-Semitism. But then again, her formative years were shaped pre-Hitler and the Soviet slaughter she lived through was largely engineered by Jewish Communists. Something she must have been aware of at least implicitly.

Biddle is the worst. He considers himself some sort of Objectivist intellectual. Ever since he split with Peikoff and Brook, no A-list Objectivists will write for his publication.

I don't know much about Tracinksi, but in this article he repeats a bunch of nonsense about Hispanic immigrants (eg, Bush got 44% of their vote) that even mainstream cucks long ago realized were false.

It's interesting to note that just about the only people in Europe who are opposing the Islamic invasion are conservative Christians. The Orthodox Archbishop of Bulgaria recently spoke out forcefully about the Islamic invasion.